America's Record Political And Ideological Divide In Charts

One hardly needs more charts to understand that over the past 6 years America has never become more ideologically and politically divided, but here, just to hammer that point, is the latest survey of 10,000 adults from Pew confirming just this.

In a nutshell, after some modest convergence to the center in the last decade of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st, Americans have radically polarized their views and have grown further apart politically and culturally to never before seen degrees. The "median democrat" has become more ideologically consistent with other liberals, while the "median republican", with other conservatives. Furthermore, both sides are more disapproving of those they disagree with.

Finally those at the extremes are most vocal, as the dwindling center has grown frustrated by both wings. And not helping matters is a Congress, which courtesy of the Fed's monetary policy which is now extensively used in lieu of a functioning fiscal process ("Get to work Mr. Chairman"), means that dissatisfaction with the broken legislative branch has never been higher, even if the stock market is at all time highs.

This article misses an important point that Nevada Democratics discovered in last night's primary for Governor. The largest segment of votes have no party affiliation. It's independents, then Democrats, then Republcans. It seems many independents, not all, are disillusioned ex-Republicans that still vote conservative but want nothting to do with GOP leadershit.

Providing answer choices like "Giving Obama everything he wants" or "Giving the Republicans everything they want" tells me a lot about the clowns designing the polling. We are only given options that assume we keep on playing this game that is played with two sets of rules. It is time to think outside the box a bit.

It'd be nice if they asked more pertinent questions, something that might show a more detailed picture of America's actual mindset, and show the pollees things from a new perspective:

"True or False: Both parties are only concerned about growing government to serve their ends and the ends of those who keep them in office?"

"Do you think the Republicans actually serve the conservative platform that they espouse?"

"Do you think Democrats are more concerned with: A) Preserving the major civil liberties affecting life and property. OR B) Petty issues affecting tiny minorities because it plays well in the media at this point in time?"

Republicans more conservative, really? They shifted further right over the past decades, so it's now overrun with small government, lower spending, lower-regulation pro-freedom types?

And democrats are more liberal -- so team blue is agressively backing civil rights, reigning in the police and prison complex, and regulating big business to protect the little guy?

Yeah, this is a complete fraud. Conservative my ass, liberal my all. They just redefined their metrics of measurement to be whatever the religious right is and whatever "liberal" ideals today are, and then backwards-filled the data set to show the previously determined conclusion.

I never respond to polls. The phone would be ringing off the hook if I did. Once they smell the blood in the water, they're all over you. The assholes actually leave prerecorded messages to respond to their worthless polls. Clearly, the people who answer these polls are self-selected, useful idiots who enjoy the masochistic exercise of responding to idiotic questions. Looking at the questions I can honestly say that I wouldn't even begin to know how to answer any of them seriously.

I don't like to be categorized and analyzed and all my preferences known. I figure it's an advantage to keep what I believe to myself and an object of obscurity to the pollsters and marketers (i.e., rascals and thieves.)

Geee.... I wonder what happened after 2008??? Ya don't think it has any thing to do with the racially/politically/religous/economically divisive arrogant narcissistic illegal indonesian kenyan alien muslim sociopathic liar in chief? Nah.... no way....

Exactly. Although I find many willing to place the blame for every evil and every fuck up on liberals, I've yet to find anyone who can say what a liberal is. I'm sure I'm placed firmly in the liberal camp although nobody has a clue what my positions are in reguards to issues. But since I'm less than entralled with Republicans I must be a liberal. There are quite a few issues I agree with what my perception of conservative views of the subject are, and there are quite a few that I disagree with.

If you believe in adherence to Constitutional principles, hold your personal freedoms in high regard (understanding they come with matching responsibilities) and think government is best that governs least, you pass the sniff test.

If not, you're a dirty stinking liberal.

Just kidding. You'd actually be a statist. I don't know what a liberal is, but I know what statism, corruption, cronyism and central planning are.

I was pondering this just the other day myself. It is interesting that the label Liberal has become so corrupted. Our country was founded on the principles of "liberalism" but only in the context of that timeframe. The definition then being that governing power is not derived from divine right and therefore must be exercised from the will of the governed. The ideal that man, as a sentient being, deserves the dignity of a free existence to pursue their goals as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

The Constitution, for it's time frame, was a document derived from "liberal" ideals (also of that time frame).

Now the term has been corrupted to mean that man, as a sentient being, DESERVES the indignity of a subsidised existence if they lag "behind" and that it is the imposed and government enforced duty of those deemed more fortunate to provide that subsidy. Also, the people as wards of a government that THEY elect should be subject to increased governmental control by virture of electing said government (ie the people elected representatives that espouse the idea of increasing government intervention therefore the will of the people is that they are increasingly imposed by their own government, even more simply put, you're asking for us to make decisions for you so we're doing it).

Sadly, the 2nd pillar of modern liberalism holds true. Voters ARE asking for someone to make more choices and absorb more responsibility for them. They might hee and haw when they occasionally come face to face with the results of an increasingly heavy handed government, but they continue to identify with a party (which at times can be either party) that oppresses them.

Ergo, the American ideal of liberalism (which initially sounded a hell of a lot like "libertarianism") has become so pervasive as to absolve most US voters to firmly believe that many functions of government and normal life fall firmly outside of their control. This manifests itself (across the political spectrum even) with voters thinking the government is a distinctly separate entity instead of merely an extension of themselves. The relationship becomes more of parent/child and eventually degrades into master/slave. Not exactly a great outlook we have here when most of the country seems to think they are powerless to live their lives mostly as they see fit (by either voting for change, establishing networks within their community, or just simply ignoring laws that they find assinine). In other words Americans... grow some fucking balls, why do you think someone else is responsible to give you what you want?

In the modern era, conservative and liberal are merely the poles of a spectrum, on which your point is determined by how you answer the following question: should there be more or less government? In the event you answer the former, then you're a liberal; in the event you answer the latter, then you're a conservative... albeit of varying degrees (anarchists being the furthest conservative).

As used in the common vernacular (especially MSM), liberals and conservatives are defined by ancillary and irrelevant issues, e.g. abortion. In short, the only matters discussed are "social" issues, rather than "monetary/fiscal" issues. Given that the social function of a government is always dictated by the amount of funds at its disposal, we're ignoring the real differentiating factors between conservative and liberal ideologies (economic policy). This is how republicans and democracts can both be liberal, but still claim to be different from one another.

That's an effect, not the cause. There are two causes: C-SPAN, which gave every blowhard politician a platfom to pander, and computers, which allowed politicians to slice and dice voting data to give gerrymandering efforts a turbo boost.

This, getting rid of direct election of senators, and switching to a different method of voting (after very careful research) to get rid of "wasted votes."

People always look at me strange when I tell them we've never had less democratic representation in congress than today. Every single day the population grows, the seats are fixed, and we've gone from 1 rep per 33,000 people to 1 per 750,000 or so in the past 200 years.

this looks like the point where (in europe's proportional voting systems) new political parties emerge

----

pods, what is a statist, exactly? or, better, what is not "statism"? honest question, the American political vocabulary is terribly confusing. and unique

would an exponent of a movement against a standing professional army (back to militia) be still a statist? or do you have to be a complete anarchist (best anarcho-capitalist) to stop being a statist? or is it a matter of degrees, like more or less state? were the Founding Fathers statists? is a constitution a statist document?

It's mostly an epithet, because this is America and our thought processes are... stunted.

However, one could look at a spectrum of value for personal autonomy on one end, and group cohesion on the other end, and place a marker, arbitrarily of course, somewhere on the line while proclaiming, "On this, side are the libertarians and on this side are the statists."

I've known and worked with those I would unhesitatingly call statists, and they all had the common qualities of believing that they were representatives of the common good, that they knew what was best for others, and that they should be empowered to enforce it.

I disagree with stunted thought processes. give the average American a bit of space to make a buck, and you'll see that his thought processes are more than fine (I've hired enough Americans in my life to know that first-hand)

yet something I can't say to an American face to face (wonders of anonymous blogs): why the fuck do you still have only two fucking choices? in all facets of American life more choices is better, yet when it comes to politics... crickets

you have the fucking oldest political voting system of the whole world, with the exception of the Brits. and they somehow still manage to have more than two parties

and you constantly use the wierdest, unexplainable political terms, like "statist" or "globalist". imho it's a lack of interest

ask the French (cue French haters): they are currently in their Fifth Republic. when was the last Amendment to your constitution? (no, this has nothing to do with the other inane discussion about "living constitution")

The reason we only have two parties is because they are in reality just one party. This is easily proved by the fact both parties will join together to co-opt and destroy any attempt at forming another option. Look at how the Occupy wallstreet movement and the tea party movement has been treated by both sides. They are treated like plagues because they disrupt the status quo.

co-optation is the first principle of a republic. actually, co-optation is a good thing more often than not. and in fact the above statistics could be used to make the case that the two parties absorbed Occupy and Tea Party... and are now more distant from each other because of this

yet again, show me where in the constitution is stated that you have to use the current voting system. hell, redistricting is constitutional, isn't it?

"statistics could be used to make the case that the two parties absorbed Occupy and Tea Party"

Except that the Tea Party just ousted the second most powerful Republican in Washinton who walked out with his mouth hanging open. It's not just him either, many more are under threat or being replaced. Keep watching, this last win was very big.

I believe Canada had a similar falling out between the Republican-Tea Party types not so long ago. They split the party and let the liberals to have their way. The liberals eventually ran the thing in the ground and had to make some changes because they owned the whole government. Eventually the Canadian Republican and Tea Party types made nice and came together and look at the Canucks now!

I find that making money has an incredible amount to do with wisdom; the wisest people I know make the most reasonable decisions and, thus, refrain from participating in the idiotic business plans that end up being successful (generally in ways completely unanticipated to the entrepreneur) and lead to substantial wealth.

Well, everything is in degrees I guess. To an anarchist, any organization would be considered statism.

The founding fathers understood certain things, but the constitution definitely opened the door for statism to flourish. Oddly enough it was Hamilton who argued that including the bill of rights in the constitution would confuse the purpose of the document. And he was right. The constitution was a framework declaring what the federal government could do. By including the BOR, it muddled the purpose of it. Now we as individuals speak about being permitted to do this or that by the constitution when in reality, the constitution was about certain functions delegated to the federal government, and was not a constraint on the people.

My definition of a statist is one who agrees with the idea of using an organization to effect an outcome that they as an individual cannot achieve themselves. They use the power of the state to achieve what they cannot through non coersive methods.

excellent answer, can't fault anything about that. yet if my history knowledge about the US does not betray me, the Founding Fathers enacted tons and tons of tariffs, making the US one of the most trade protectionist countries of the world, and this for at least 100 years

isn't that too using the power of the state constraining the people? I'm asking because of the "incoming" revelations from the still secret trade talks between US & EU

I'm sure I'll be attacked here as statist and protectionist, as soon as we'll discuss it on ZH

I would argue that it is NOT the Bill of Rights, but that the Constitution has been corrupted by liberal judges who can overturn the wishes of both voters and their elected representatives. Judges now think they have the power to write laws, force spending by companies and taxpayers, and re-interpret the entire Constitution.

Well the idea that the constitution can be used to constrain the people it taking the inverse of the BOR. So the BOR actually provided the idea that the constitution permits the individual to do certain things, instead of restraining the servant government. That is the entire reason for putting in the 9th amendment. Of course you never hear of that one do you?

That is a terrible reading of the constitution... take for example, the second amendment, it simply acknowledges our natural right to bear arms... it doesn't grant us the right to do anything. People cannot reasonably confuse this issue... if they state otherwise, then they have something to sell.

I think at the time the Federalists realized that the constitution of 1789 was a power ratchet. It would take time to eat away at the safe guards built into it, but eventually it would allow the new Republic to look a lot like the British Empire. I don't believe the Federalists were fools. They were human and jammed through a framework that would give them all the power that power hungry politicos like Hamilton, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt could wring out of it. It was a power ratchet. One click at a time....

Saying it like that, you're sure to attract some mouth foaming leftist that will automatically assume 'the south' or 'states rights' means slavery because that's what leftists did. recommend that you always add that certain snark so shut them up. 'To the hopelessly protarded droolers, no that does not mean slavery or racism. Just because you did it that way does not mean I do. Remember, we are opposition'. Just a thought....

Stupidity. People should be uniting to bring all those responsible for the destruction of America to the guillotines. Instead they swallowing the "political" bait hook-line-and-sinker and further empowering their enemies the treasonous pols and crats and their thieving masters the banksters.

Its all crap and Im a guy that doesn't typically believe in conspiracy. The unipolar Anglo American axis is in place.

Whether is Obama in place of Bush or Hollande in place of Sarkozy, nothing changes. These guys all answer to higher powers. Hollande is just a war mongering keynesian corporatist crony like the rest of them.

A captain should endeavour with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

It's the human condition - as history has shown over and over. If we have the Repubs, the Dems, the Tea Party, the Nazi party, the communist party, the bildeberg party, the birthday party - it all ends up the same: with fat cats scheming how they will hold on to the people's money and power. It is always the same, always. And it has always been true: Man cannot serve two masters; he will either love the one and dispise the other, or hate the one and love the other - Jesus. Who's yo' daddy? God or mammon? That's the question we all have to ask ourselves. Governements and corporations and 'parties' or 'groups' don't seem to answer that question - they choose to ignore it. At their own peril and the peril of their people.

And yet somehow they meet in the middle to bailout banks/insurers/corporations, pass or not stop Obamacare, waste money handing it out to Ukraine and African Warlords, allowing the N.S.A. to trample the Constitution, and passing legislation so they don't have to obey laws their constituents do.

Reminds me of that old country song "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."

Yes, this is correct. Sheeples get more brainwashed - Govt critics get more awake. Alex Jones keeps saying this for the last 2 years and he's on it dead straight.

Also the Republican shift to conservative is definitely the libertarian influence and awakening to NWO, while the sheeples are way more likely to be on the average democrat progressive side or modern liberal, they also hijacked the terms, thomas jefferson was a liberal, so we call him a classic liberal so we can distinguish from these modern nwo fake liberals who are actually authoritarians.

Average democrats, hardcore progressives, are the kinds of people that would believe the establishment bull about constitutionalists being the supposable terrorists.

Many people who know the NWO can't get good jobs, as the situations vary, they may have been unfairly treated and have som other problem they couldn't have an influence on before, so you can't make such simplified grouping throwing all kinds of cases in the same bucket.

Well I believe this chart either shows the possible libertarian awakening in people or most likely people spewing out factoids they hear from MSNBC and Fox News, if it is the latter then this country will become a total shithole thousands times worse then it is now

MAYBE THE CHARTS WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE IF IT INCLUDED THE LARGEST POLITICAL DEMOGRAPHIC > INDEPENDENT. Of course, Pew, being simply a propaganda arm for the status quo cannot even admit that independents actually exist, more or less that they are now in the majority.

IMO, the majority of mainstream does not give a damn about Republicans (who now appear to be progressives in disguise) and Democrats (who are the balls to wall progressives).

They are working toward the same goal: Tear it down so that they can rebuild it in their own image... and that is both disgusting and frightening (as it is intended to be).

Doc, I understand and agree with you - it's not the CAUSE of any problem we are having.

I do agree with the OP in part though; it is a SYMPTOM of a society that's lost its way, just as our increased acceptance/legalization of drugs, easy bankruptcy (and no shame), easy welfare (and no shame), and easy teen/unmarried mother pregnancy (and no shame) all are.

A vibrant and growing society values hard work, forebearance, rectitude, and honesty. A decaying society values license and libidiousness, mocks the just and hard working, and in its jaded desire for ever more sensation, elevates and idolizes the conman ("wolf of wall street", Elliot Spitzer, Bambam), the freak (Gaga, Cyrus, anyone 'transgendered'), and the libertine (Kardashians, Hoffman, Winehouse). We've seen the story told endlessly, Athens vs. Sparta, Rome vs. the barbarians, Louis XVI, Europe in the 'Roaring 20's', etc. Whenever the ruling class gets hopelessly decadent, the society over all is due for the high jump.

mmmmmmm.. Worried about pole smokers and clam clankers getting their freaks on, no. Who gives a shit about that. But then, that's not what the gaystapo agenda is for. You, as a Dr or, someone that stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night, should be thinking a little deeper.

There is nothing in the leftist agenda that's meant to unite anyone. It's meant to divde, sub-divide, polarize and conquer. The left undeniably uses the gay agenda (that in reality has no place in govt) as one attack vector to destroy the stability and prosperity of the real nuclear family unit to breed leftist, govt dependent voters and for that, you should be concerned.

This study can't even define "Liberal" and "Conservative." That says quite a lot. As a matter of fact, it gets close to the truth that it was marketing people hired by the Democratic and Republican parties who set up "Liberal" and "Conservative" as ideological poles on a spectrum. The two parties are not ideological, so to keep people interested and invested, they had to make up terms they could define however they wanted to, to make it appear there were inherent differences between the parties. They might as well have picked "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling," for all the relevance of the terms.

Both parties (or, to play along, ideologies) assume the same basic abstract financial system. Both assume a huge military. Both assume a level of corporate political power and control. They differ as to which constituency should be more heavily favored; right now, the Democrats (Liberals?) favor Finance, while the Republicans (Conservatives?) favor oil and coal.

Neither party will allow any discussion of the "box" in which they keep their range of perspectives. Therefore, the vast majority of Americans regard our current socio-economic system the way we might assume a fish regards water; it is everywhere and surrounds them and they just assume it without being able to think about it.

If you're asked if you want to be poked in the eye with a knitting needle or punched in the stomach, and your response, "I'd like to be patted gently on the back" is completely ignored, that is hardly a representation of all available options. Same goes for "Democrat" and "Republican," and even more absurdly, "Liberal" and "Conservative." They're all a bunch of Fascists with an overlay of classical liberal cultural references. They just differ in to whom they're pandering right now for votes. Wait a generation; they'll flip poles yet again.

Hell, I could have drawn all that with my finger in a beer puddle... ;-)

This is some really scary stuff and it has broader implications than those overtly covered. I believe that if we looked at charts depicting pro vs. anti current government philosophy that those charts would look largely the same.

The nation is polarizing into pro and anti State camps, and the Statists are running scared (and arming up). This is a very dangerous time for us here in the U.S.

This is DEEPLY flawed analysis. You should question the agenda behind this piece of crap. Much has been written about the overlapping populist interests growing in the USA so how could the author miss this?

POPULISM is nowhere referenced here.
The Progressive Left and the Libertarian Right OVERLAP on:

1) Trade policy- Both the left and the right reject secret trade deals written by corporate multinationals. They want open deals that the public can way in on. Remember Ross Perot?

2) NSA/Government Spying- Both the left and right want the 4th Amendment honored and both want to see blanket, warrantless data collection stopped.
Both BELIEVE in the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The left and right ask the question of our elected officials: “When you had the chance to stand up for Americans’ privacy, did you?”

3) Both the left and right want to limit money in politics. Both want to see open transparency so that we can see how much the Chinese are indirectly bankrolling the elections in the USA. Both believe money is NOT speech and that Corporations are NOT people.

4) Those who serve in Congress should be banned from lobbying. Period.

5) Both the left and right believe we need to stop unnecessary foreign interventions.

6) Both the Progressive left and Populist right agree that income inequality is a threat to our countries political system and its economy.

Populism is the most frightening thing in the world to the elites. They will deride it as falling under the spell of a demagogue whenever anyone espousing it gets any traction.

Then they will seize on something that non-club member said in order to destroy him or her. Or that person will simply be shot, poisoned, plane-crashed or otherwise gotten out of the way. The list of victims is endless.

We should all remember that POPULISM is not an inherently "GOOD" thing or "BAD" thing.

Populism is simply the phenomena where the people across a country start recognizing their common interest, whatever those interests might be.

Populism also requires leaders to act as the nucleating agent that brings the peeps together as a movement.

Populism is capable of being crushed. The uprising in Tiananmen square was one example where an authoritarian government using a legion of undercover operatives was able to seek out and silence each potential populist leader before the events of 1989 could be repeated. The people in China still have their collectively held populist aspirations (Freedom, Democracy, Economic and Environmental fairness) but no leader is allowed to emerge for them to gain focus and power.